Tag Archives: Female Convict

Profile: Margaret Combs

Scottish-born Margaret Combs, a married woman, was twenty-six when she arrived in Van Diemen’s Land in the middle of a Hobart winter on 8 July 1852. In the six years leading to her transportation, she was arrested at least three times[1], and was incarcerated in Calton Jail, Edinburgh. She stated her marital status as either married or single, depending on her circumstances. That she lived at times “at no fixed address” might have been as a result of an unstable marriage, and certainly might have contributed to her unlawful activities. She appeared to still be married to John Duff when she arrived in Hobart and that she could not read or write, however, that made little difference to Margaret. She didn’t let any of her past in Scotland get in the way of securing her future. What makes this story so special, is that Margaret turned her life around—from being condemned in court as being “habite and repute a thief” and the perpetrator of a “wicked attack” on a man, to being a respectable boarding house owner who employed servants and became a mother and grandmother. This is her story.

A marriage and brush with the law

Margaret Combs was born in the Parish of Edinburgh, county Midlothian, Scotland, to Alexander Combs and Mary Crokat on 15 March 1826[2]. She had a sister, Mary, who was two years younger. At the age of sixteen, Margaret married John Duff on 5 October 1842 in the Parish of St Cuthbert’s in Edinburgh.

Margaret was average in height for a woman, being 5’, and was described as having a fresh complexion, large head, black hair and eyebrows with dark eyes, oval face, and having a medium-sized forehead, nose, mouth and chin.[3]

Little is known about the newly-wed Duffs, until just over five years after their marriage. In April 1848, Margaret was arrested for assault and robbery in “a house of disrepute” and incarcerated in Edinburgh’s Calton Jail. When renowned author, Jules Verne, visited Edinburgh in 1859 he described the jail as resembling a small-scale version of a medieval town[4] (the jail was demolished in 1935). It is most likely that Margaret would have been held in The Bridewell whilst she was waiting for her trial.

Calton Jail was built in 1819 and The Bridewell building was adjacent. The Bridewell was set out in a semi-circle, with a pulpit in the middle so that all of the prisoners could either see or hear the preacher. The sleeping cells were described as “airy and fit for one person.”[5] In Margaret’s two months of incarceration, she might have been employed in cooking and washing duties and certainly by the time she arrived in Van Diemen’s Land described her occupation as a ‘Plain Laundress’. In The Bridewell, there were separate rooms for ‘female felons’ and ‘female convicts’, although the distinction is unclear.

At the time of her arrest, Margaret, at age twenty-two, was living at Scott’s Close, Cowgate, in Edinburgh’s Old Town area, and lived close-by to the Edinburgh Sherrif’s Court (they were in the same street). Her husband John worked as a carrier.

Margaret was arrested with another woman, Jane Sheills (aged twenty-four and married to a confectioner). Their case was tried on 26 June 1848 in the Edinburgh High Court of Justiciary, and the Caledonian Mercury reported on events in its paper published three days later.

Both Margaret and Jane pleaded not guilty to the charge of “assaulting a gentleman in a disreputable house in Leith Street, and robbing him of £242.” The gentleman in question was David Pursell. Solicitors, Mr Moncreiff and Mr Logan, appeared as Margaret and Jane’s counsel. After several witnesses were examined, the paper’s article went on to report that “the case was given up by the Crown on account of wanting corroborative testimony to the principal witness, some of the other witnesses who are said to be acquainted with the prisoners, having given evidence quite to the contrary of what was expected by the public prosecutor.” The verdict handed down was the case was “not proven” and Margaret and Jane were “Assoilzied simliciter and dismissed”—that is, they were found not guilty[6].

A freedom short-lived

Perhaps emboldened by the support she received from acquaintances, which enabled her to avoid prosecution, Margaret ran afoul of the law again the next year, and appeared in court on 19 October 1849. But perhaps the reason for her alleged criminal activity might be more related to the fact that she had “no fixed place of residence”[7] at the time and may have been living on the streets. Unlike with her previous arrest, Margaret’s husband John is not mentioned in any proceedings, and indeed, Margaret attests that she is “not married”[8].

Margaret was accused of the “theft of a bank or bankers note for twenty pounds Sterling”[9]. The Advocate Sheriff of the County of Edinburgh, John Thomson Gordon Esq, who tried her case, stated to the jury that Margaret was “lately a prisoner in the Prison of Edinburgh” and her crime was “aggravated by her being habite and repute a thief”[10], which was relevant to her guilt. The jury by a majority found her guilty, and the Sheriff sentenced her to imprisonment at the Prison of Edinburgh for eighteen calendar months from the date of the trial[11].

The Caledonian Mercury reported on 22 October 1849: “Margaret Combe[sic] or Duff was found guilty of the theft of a bank note for £20, from the pocket of Charles John Flower, on the 10th or 11th of September, aggravated by previous conviction, and with being habite and repute a thief, and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment.”

The last straw

Margaret’s sentence of incarceration at the Prison of Edinburgh ended in April 1851, and she secured accommodation at Bull’s Close, Canongate, in the Edinburgh Old Town area[12]. But, three months later, she was arrested again and taken before one of Edinburgh’s magistrates, Andrew Fyfe, Esq. on 23 July. Margaret gave a deposition answering the police charges and was placed back in prison. She would remain there until November that year, when would find herself back in the High Court of Justiciary answering for what was described as a “heinous” crime.

Margaret, who was aged twenty-five, and her co-accused, Marian Gray (aged twenty-four, and also with a history of imprisonment), were facing the charge of “Robbery; as also Theft, aggravated by being habite and repute a thief and previously convicted.”[13] Their case was tried by James Moncreiff, Esq. as Advocate for Her Majesty’s interest. He considered that as Margaret and Marian had been previously convicted of theft, their “crimes (were) of an heinous nature, and severely punishable.”[14]

Mr Moncreiff laid out the charges: “on the 22nd day of July 1851, (Tuesday), or on one or other of the days of that month, or of June immediately preceding, or of August immediately following, in or near Princes Street, Edinburgh, and in or near the division thereof between the Register Office and South Saint Andrew Street, you the said Margaret Combs and Marion Gray did, both and each, or one or other of you, wickedly and feloniously, attack and assault John Rodgers, a printer, then and now or lately residing in or near Glover Street, Arbroath, in the county of Forfar.” (Author’s note: the date of the alleged crime appears a little broad!).

Mr Moncreiff continued: “…and did seize him round the body, and did struggle with him, and did, by force and violence, take from his person or custody, and did rob him of, A Pocket-Book, Two Bank or Banker’s Notes for Five Pounds sterling each, Twelve, or thereby, Bank or Banker’s Notes for One Pound Sterling each, Several Scraps of Paper, and A Shirt-Collar, his property, or in his lawful possession.” (Author’s note: it is quite a mental picture being drawn of this man, a printer, being physically seized by either Margaret or Marian or both—sometime during the summer months of Scotland—and being robbed of all of his possessions, including his shirt collar. But perhaps Mr Moncreiff felt the jury might not be convinced that the two women accused would be capable of overpowering Mr Rodgers, so he covers his bases. Read on.)

“OR OTHERWISE. Time and Place above libelled, you the said Margaret Combs and Marion Gray did, both and each, or one or other of you, wickedly and feloniously, steal and theftuously away take, from the person or custody of the said John Rodgers, The Pocket-Book, Bank or Banker’s Notes, Scraps of Paper, and Shirt-Collar, above libelled, the property, or in the lawful possession, of the said John Rodgers.”

So, the women are either thugs and thieves, or just wicked thieves—that’s quite a distinction.

Mr Moncreiff goes on to confirm that both women have had previous convictions for theft and neither knows how to write, and that the declarations made by both women in the presence of magistrate Andrew Fyfe, Esq. in July (reproduced below), “along with a shirt-collar; being to be used in evidence against both and each of you at your trial; As also, an extract or certified copy of each conviction for the crime of theft, obtained against you the said Margaret Combs, under the name of Margaret Combs or Duff in the Sheriff-court of the county of 19th October 1849, Being to be used in evidence against you the said Margaret Combs at your trial, will, for that purpose, be in due time lodged in the hands of the Clerk of the high Court of Justiciary, before which you the said Margaret Combs and Marion Gray are to be tried that you may respectively have an opportunity of seeing the same: All which, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an Assize, or admitted by the respective judicial confessions of you the said Margaret Combs and Marion Gray, before the Lord Justice-General Lord Justice-Clerk, and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, you the said Margaret Combs and Marion Gray ought to be punished with the pains of the law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all time coming.”

Marion Gray’s declaration[15] made in front of magistrate Andrew Fyfe, Esq. follows:

“Declaration of Marion Gray 23rd July 1851,

At Edinburgh, the Twenty-Third day of July, Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One, In presence of Andrew Fyfe, Esquire one of the Magistrates of Edinburgh and Sheriff-Deputy thereof, Marion Gray presently in custody, being brought for examination, Declares,

I am twenty-four years of age, I am a native of Edinburgh, and reside in Anchor Close. I am not married. And being shown a man who states his name to be John Rodgers, Arbroath, Declares, was in Princes Street yesterday morning early when I was apprehended and taken to the Police Office, but I do not know what for. I had not seen the said John Rodgers in Princes Street before my apprehension. I was with the prisoner Margaret Combs or Duff in Princes Street yesterday morning and had spoken to her two or three minutes before I was apprehended. I was in company with her when I was apprehended. I have no more to say. All or which I declare to be the truth and declare I cannot write.

The Declaration written upon this and the preceding page by William Meudell, apprentice to Robert Monham, Deputy City Clerk of Edinburgh was free and voluntarily emitted of the date it bears by the therein named Marion Gray, who was in her sound and sober senses at the time, and the same having been read over to her, she adhered thereto in presence of Robert Lockhart Dymock, Procurator Fiscal of said city, the said William Meudell, and James Sutherland, City Officer. [signed] Robert Dymock, William Meudell, and James Sutherland.”

Margaret’s declaration[16] made in front of magistrate Andrew Fyfe, Esq., which follows, didn’t help her case:

“Declaration of Margaret Combs 23 July 1851,

At Edinburgh, the Twenty-Third day of July, Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One, In presence of Andrew Fyfe, Esquire one of the Magistrates of Edinburgh and Sheriff-Deputy thereof, Margaret Combs presently in custody being brought for examination, Declares,

I am twenty-three years of age[17]. I am a native of Edinburgh and reside in Bull’s Close, Canongate, I am not married. And being shown a man who states his name to be John Rodgers, Arbroath, Declares, I have no statement to make and decline answering any questions. All of which I declare to be truth and declare I cannot write at present. [signed] Andrew Fyfe.

The Declaration written upon the preceding page by William Meudell, Apprentice to Robert Monham Deputy City Clerk of Edinburgh was freely and voluntarily emitted of the date it bears by the therein named Margaret Combs, who was in her sound and sober senses at the time and the same having been read over to her she adhered thereto in presence of Robert Lockhart Dymock, Procurator Fiscal of said City, the said William Meudell and Alexander McPherson, City Officer. [signed] Robert Monham, William Meudell, Alexander McPherson.”

The Caledonian Mercury summed it up like this: “Margaret Combs and Marion Gray were charged with assaulting a gentleman in Princes Street on the night of the 22nd July last, and robbing him of a pocket-book containing £22.”

The jury heard from twelve witnesses (including police officers—of all the witnesses, four were general public, including the victim) and only found the case to be proven in respect to Margaret. Marian Gray was discharged. Margaret returned to the court the next day for her sentencing, as reported in the newspaper:

“Edinburgh High Court 11th November 1851: Margaret Combes [sic], who had been found guilty on the previous day of stealing a pocket-book from a gentleman in Princes Street, was placed at the bar, and sentenced to transportation for fourteen years. The Lord Justice-Clerk, in passing sentence, blamed the police for remissness of duty in not having pursued the accomplice of the panel [sic], who made off with the pocket-book.” [18]

A free ride to England

Transportation of Scottish prisoners to the antipodes occurred from an English port, which meant prisoners needed to undertake the journey to an English prison first—for Margaret, this trip would cover more than 600 km. There was no central depot at which Scottish women could be assembled before transportation, so it was at the discretion of each prison to prepare the women for their journey. There was little or no opportunity for the women to be provided with any small amount of goods to take with them. Many of the women sentenced to transportation represented some of the poorest and most destitute within Scottish society, and thus would have little or nothing by way of possessions to their name. So, they would set out on this epic journey with only what the ship’s surgeon could provide: prison clothes and work tools to keep them occupied, such as those required for sewing.[19]

On 24 January 1852, Millbank Prison—located in Pimlico, London—confirmed the arrival of prisoner #4259 Margaret Combs, age twenty-three[20], married[21], and of no occupation, from the Edinburgh Goal. She remained in this prison until 16 March 1852, the day after her actual twenty-sixth birthday[22], when she was discharged to the transport Sir Robert Seppings. With extremely cold winds blowing from the north-east, the Sir Robert Seppings departed Woolwich two days later, and arrived in Hobart, Van Diemen’s Land on 8 July 1852 (a journey of 112 days).[23]

During the voyage, Margaret needed the attention of the surgeon for ‘catarrh’ on 31 May 1852 (her age is listed as twenty-five) and was on the ‘sick list’ for two days, when she was declared ‘cured’[24]. The surgeon, Lennox T. Cunningham, was described by James Montagu Smith, a 15-year-old boy seaman on his second voyage to Australia, as a “good doctor but an ‘infernal old scoundrel’ that reminded him of a ‘lecherous old Turk in the midst of his harem’.”[25] During the voyage, the women were allowed on deck during the day and had their meals there if the weather was good, but at night they were locked below deck.[26]

Van Diemen’s Land—a new world

When Margaret stepped off the boat in the middle of Hobart’s winter, she would have gathered shivering on the wharf amongst the other two hundred and eighteen prisoners who survived the journey (one prisoner starved herself to death), plus some sixteen children who also survived (they buried five children during the voyage)[27].

After Margaret’s physical and criminal details were noted on the official records, she and the other prisoners and children were taken to the Brickfields Hiring Depot[28] on 12 July 1852. In her records, it is noted she was married and had “Nine times in prison”.[29] We can only confirm three incarcerations for Margaret, according to a search of the Crown Counsel Procedure Books[30] and a search of the relevant newspapers: in 1848 for theft of £242 (where she was found not guilty); for theft of bank note (where she received eighteen months jail) and the theft of pocket book and £22 (where she received fourteen years transportation).[31]

Now at the Brickfields Hiring Depot (which would be closed four months later), Margaret and the other prisoners could expect to be hired out to a private employer.[32] She didn’t have to wait long. On 16 July 1852, four days later, Margaret, with the occupation as a ‘plain laundress’, was allocated to a Thomas Goldie in Hobart Town.[33]

Later, Margaret was allocated to the Hobart Post Office, and although her records are difficult to decipher here, it appears she absconded and may have spent time at the Cascades Female Factory. [34]

A positive influence leading to freedom

At some time in the three months after her arrival, Margaret met Thomas Bailey. Bailey stood half a foot taller than her, with a fair complexion, dark brown hair, grey eyes and red whiskers. He wore a tattoo of an anchor on the inside left arm and a small cross on the inside right. A Protestant, he could read and write a little. A labourer by occupation, he was tried at the Middlesex County Criminal Court on 10 May 1847 for housebreaking and stealing jewellery, for which he was transported for ten years. He sailed out on the William Jardine and arrived in November 1850 aged twenty-seven.[35]

On 20 October 1852, Margaret and Thomas Bailey applied to be married which was granted.[36] Within four months after her arrival, on 22 November 1852 Margaret Combs (aged twenty-six and potentially still married to John Duff) and Thomas Bailey (aged twenty-seven[37]) were married at the Church of England, St John’s New Town, Van Diemen’s Land. He was listed as a bachelor labourer and she a spinster. Their marriage was witnessed by John Paynter and Sarah White[38].

The marriage was good for both Margaret and Thomas (who was known as Henry and changed the spelling of his surname from Bailey to Bayley).

By the time of their marriage, Henry Bailey already had his Ticket of Leave (granted 18 May 1852) and seven months after their marriage, his Conditional Pardon came through on 14 June 1853.

Margaret’s Ticket of Leave was granted a year later, on 29 August 1854[39] which had to be held for six months.

Three years into their marriage, Henry was working as a Ginger Beer Maker, and on 17 October 1855, Margaret Bayley (formerly Combes [sic]) produced a son, Henry John Bayley. That Margaret had taught herself to read and write is evidenced when she signed the birth registration document in her own hand “Mag Bayley mother [living at] Bathurst Street”.[40]

Gold fever hits

On 20 February 1856, Margaret joined her husband, Henry, in having her Conditional Pardon approved.[41] She had served just four years and three months of her fourteen year transportation sentence. However, their Conditional Pardons were granted upon condition they shall not return or be found within the counties in which they were severally convicted or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland during the remaining term of their sentences of transportation.

Even though they couldn’t yet return to the United Kingdom, there was nothing now keeping them in Hobart, and the shiny gold fields in Victoria drew their attention.

The gold rush started in Victoria five years earlier, and there’s no doubt stories would have filtered through about the fortune to be made there. It is unclear exactly when they arrived in Victoria, but Margaret (maiden name Combs) gave birth to a son, William Bayley in 1857 at Epsom Victoria.[42]

Epsom is part of the greater area of Bendigo in central Victoria. The official discovery of gold at Bendigo occurred in October 1851, a few months after discoveries at Clunes (June), Mount Alexander (July) and Ballarat (August). The Bendigo Creek contained rich alluvial gold, as did several nearby gullies. The in-rush of miners was notable for the populations of Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Scots, ‘Yankees’, Germans and Chinese. Of the 166,550 persons inhabiting the large area over which the gold fields extended, no less than 124,891 were dwellers in tents, three-fourths of which consist of but a single apartment.[43]

It appears that Margaret and Henry lived cheek-by-jowl in a tent with their two young children, as Margaret gave witness evidence in court supporting a woman, Catherine Mathews, who “was in her tent” when she’d been assaulted. Margaret’s corroborating evidence sent the defendant to jail.[44]

Despite returns from gold prospecting were on the decline as early as 1857[45], Henry Bayley, Epsom, was granted a refreshment of his miner’s licence in December 1858.[46] With the flurry of puddlers working the area, there were complaints about the lack of water and that “many (miners) are quite at a stand still for the want of it”. There was also a push to enlarge the claims of both diggers and puddlers because the miners’ “chances were fewer of getting paid for his labour…than they would be were the ground still as rich as in the early days of gold-digging.”[47]

However, by 1860, the family had had enough, and despite Margaret not yet reaching the expiration of her sentence, the family had saved enough money to purchased passage to England (Margaret’s transportation sentence would not expire until 11 November 1865[48]).

Returning home

The family moved to Henry’s birthplace, Middlesex, and lived at 235 High Street, Shadwell in the Tower Hamlets of London. It would be Margaret and Henry’s home for the next twenty-seven years. The home was more expansive than what Margaret would be used to, and they set it up as a coffee and boarding house.

Shadwell is east of London, and lies on the northern bank of the Thames. When the Bayley’s moved there, it was at a time of great change for the area. A new entrance to the docks had recently been constructed (1858) to allow access for larger ships, and in 1865 during excavation for the creation of more docks at Shadwell, four nearby houses were flooded.[49] During Victorian times, Shadwell and the East End were not seen as pleasant places. The growth of Shadwell’s port led to an increase in the number of prostitutes in the area, and the area was known as the centre of the capital’s opium smoking.[50]

However, the Bayley family used the demographics of the area to their advantage. In the 1861 census, Margaret and Henry had nine boarders living with them, made up of seamen, mariners, porters and dock labourers. They also had a live-in domestic servant.[51] Their sons, Henry (aged six) and William (aged four) were both in school.

Over the next ten years, Henry (now aged 48) moved back to his brewing roots, and now sold beer from their home. Margaret (now 45) managed the boarding house, and in the 1871 census they had one boarder with them and a servant. It is unclear what fifteen-year-old Henry junior’s occupation was, but his thirteen-year-old brother, William, was working as a tobacconist’s assistant.[52]

The Bayley family continued this life, selling beer and taking in boarders, and their children grew. By 1881, their son Henry (now 25) had the occupation of plumber, and William (23) had married the year earlier to Mary Lucy Glover on 20 December 1880 and had moved out.[53] The following year, the family would celebrate their other son, Henry’s marriage to Mary Ann Thompson on 24 December 1882.

Seven years later, Margaret’s life as she knew it would change with the death of her husband on 14 February 1888. He had a personal estate of £268 12s, and Margaret was his sole beneficiary.

With the death of her husband, Margaret retired the beer shop and sold their home at 235 High Street Shadwell, and moved to 15 Blakesley Street, St George in the East—an area adjacent to the location of their former home. Three years after the death of her husband, Margaret (aged 65) had her daughter-in-law, Lucy Bayley, and William and Lucy’s children living with her: Margaret, Catherine and William. It is unknown what occupation William had, but perhaps he was a seaman, which would explain his absence in the 1891 Census, and perhaps why his mother, wife and children lived together in Margaret’s house. Margaret continued to employ a servant.[54]

Margaret moved house again, to 20 Blakesley Street, Commercial Road, Middlesex, where she died on 20 September 1892. Her son, Henry, who continued his occupation as a plumber, administered her will, distributing her personal effects of £1167 1s 3d.

From very rough beginnings with a marriage that was not positive for Margaret at aged sixteen—which resulted in her being jailed several times and eventually being taken from her homeland and held in a foreign land—to the opportunities afforded to her through meeting Henry Bayley. Margaret endured and didn’t let her situation crush her, instead, she worked for her future. Margaret learnt to read and write and through her and Henry’s enterprising capacity, created a supportive life for their sons and grandchildren.

Acknowledgement

This profile piece was prepared for the Female Convicts Research Centre. The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the following people for the bulk of the research for this article on Margaret Combs:

Transcription of convict records for the Sir Robert Seppings: M. Lowe, J. Lorimar, T. McKay, C. Griffin, C. McAlpine, and S. Kirkby.

Contributing research on the life of Margaret Combs: M. Lowe, M. Mann, K. Searson, T. Curry, D. Guiver, A. Davidson, B. Painter, S. Rackham, P. Selley, M. Bonnell, B. Holland, P. Bellas, T. Cready, M. Halliwell, M. Hall, A. Kennett, L. Prescott, D. Norris, Jill and Jan, L. Newham, M. Randles, M. Hubble, A. Skelcher, P. Hand, G. McLeod, J. Waddell, L. Grocott, W. Edwards, J. Hamill, Caroline, B. Pollock, and C. McAlpine

[1] Margaret’s official convict record states she was in jail nine times, however, a search of Scottish records only supports three arrests

[2] Familysearch.org

[3] Description List. Libraries Tasmania: CON19-1-10 Image 111

[4] https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/whats-on/arts-and-entertainment/lost-edinburgh-calton-jail-1562700 (accessed 30 January 2023)

[5] Gurney J.J. Notes on a visit made to some of the prisons in Scotland and The North of England in company with Elizabeth Fry (1819) via McDonald, L. Scottish Prisons 18th and 19th Century. Female Convicts Research Centre Inc website

[6] Scottish Indexes: Crown Office Precognitions. NRS Reference AD/14/48/413 and High Court of Justiciary Trial Papers NRS Reference JC26/1848/487

[7] Sheriff-Court of the County of Edinburgh. Extract Conviction. National Records of Scotland

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Scottish Indexes. Crown Office Precognitions. NRS Reference: AD14/51/442

[13] Sheriff-Court of the County of Edinburgh. Extract Conviction. National Records of Scotland. And, Caledonian Mercury 13th November 1851

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] Ibid

[17] Margaret was aged twenty-five at the time

[18] Ibid and see also Scottish Indexes: High Court of Justiciary Trial Papers. NRS Reference: JC8/60, F.2V and JC26/1851/612, Related Precognitions: AD14/51/442 url:https://www.scottishindexes.com/jcentry.aspx?jcid=1851612 (accessed 4 December 2022)

[19] McDonald, Lilian. Scottish Prisons 18th and 19th Century. Female Convicts Research Centre

[20] Margaret was actually twenty-five at the time. Also, accessed from Freecen.org.uk the Census dated 30 March 1851—that is, the year before she arrived at Millbank Prison—Margaret Combs was in the Prison of Edinburgh, married, age twenty-four. No occupation, born in Edinburgh, Midlothian

[21] Margaret declared herself ‘unmarried’ in July 1851 and was in prison from this time

[22] See previous note

[23] Original convict records. Libraries Tasmania: 13828. NAME_INDEXES: 1382247 CON41-1-34 Image 40

[24] Surgeon Superintendent’s report

[25] Smith, James Montagu; Ed: Cuffley, Peter (2001). Send the boy to sea: the memoirs of a sailor on the goldfields. The Five Mile Press. pp. 22–37.

[26] Ibid

[27] Ibid

[28] In North Hobart, on the site of the current North Hobart Oval

[29] Original convict records. Libraries Tasmania CON41-1-34 Image 40; CON15-1-7 Image 256 and CON19-1-10 Image 111

[30] Scottish Indexes

[31] Prison register of Calton Jail, Edinburgh, 1848 (refs: HH21/5/8 p. 11; HH21/5/8 p. 73; and HH21/5/8 p. 135

[32] Ibid

[33] Female Convicts Database. Record #11154

[34] Ibid

[35] Original convict records. Libraries Tasmania: CON33-1-98 Image 8

[36] Original convict records. Libraries Tasmania. CON52/1/5 Page 18

[37] If his original convict records are correct, he was twenty-nine when he was married to Margaret

[38] Original convict records. Libraries Tasmania: RGD37/1/11 no 596 Image 223

[39] Ibid

[40] Libraries Tasmania. RGD33/1/6/ record no 621, Image 73

[41] Ancestry.com.au Tasmania Convict Court and Selected Records 1800-1899. Registers of conditional pardons issued 1853-1856

[42] Births Deaths and Marriages Victoria. Registration number 17180/1857

[43] 1857 Victorian Census. https://hccda.ada.edu.au/Collated_Census_Tables/VIC-1857-census.html (ACCESSED 29 January 2023)

[44] Bendigo Advertiser, Wednesday 10 June 1857. District Police Office—violent assault

[45] The Age, Thursday, 21 May 1857. The Bendigo Gold-fields

[46] Bendigo Advertiser, Thursday, 2 December 1858. Municipal Police Court—refreshment licences

[47] Ibid

[48] Ibid

[49] North Devon Journal. 28 September 1865via British Newspaper Archive

[50] Glinert, Ed (June 2007). Literary London: A Street by Street Exploration of the Capital’s Literary Heritage. Penguin. ISBN 9780141026244

[51] United Kingdom 1861 Census. Parish of Shadwell, Parliamentary Borough of Tower Hamlets, Ecclesiastical District of Stepney. Page 35, number of schedule 161

[52] United Kingdom 1871 Census. Parish of Shadwell, Parliamentary Borough of Tower Hamlets, Ecclesiastical District of Stepney. Page 60, number of schedule 325

[53] United Kingdom 1881 Census. Parish of Shadwell, Parliamentary Borough of Tower Hamlets, Ecclesiastical District of Stepney. Page 57

[54] United Kingdom 1891 Census. Parish of St George in the East, Ecclesiastical parish of Christchurch. Page 12

Profile: Mary Ellen Walsh

Mary Ellen Walsh was born in Youghal, County Cork on 27 November 1837 and transported to Australia in 1850 on the ship Earl Grey as a convict.

During Mary Ellen Walsh’s lifetime, she was abandoned by her family as a child. She was arrested and gaoled twice, and was forced to leave her home country. In her teenage years, she resisted authority, often paying a heavy price. With so much against her, Mary was determined to create a life for herself. She looked for opportunity; marrying twice and delivering twelve children—sadly burying three of them. At times, she struggled to feed her children, being forced to give some of them up. Later, with her husband away for long periods of time, and despite constantly having children hanging onto her skirts, Mary ran a business in Campbell Town and became a popular figure in the village. In time, Mary achieved the life she wanted and knew prosperity.

Mary was a survivor. This is her story.

An act of desperation – Part I

How does a family make the decision to sell their child into service then leave the country? What impact does that have on the child being abandoned?

When over a million people are dying of starvation, and around two million more flee, it contextualises decisions made by desperate people. It might provide some insight into how a young girl could be traded for cash by her family, to work as her aunt’s servant, to fund their escape to Nova Scotia. Sacrifice one to save the many, perhaps?

Those who lived in the south and west of Ireland suffered the most in the Great Famine, and the disaster was felt even more keenly for native Irish-speaking Roman Catholics[i]. Mary Ellen Walsh and her family were unfortunate enough to be all three: Irish-speaking, Roman Catholic southerners from Cork[ii]. But they had an opportunity. Provide Mary to her Aunt Cath Walsh as a servant, in return for the means to essentially save the family by escaping the Great Famine of Ireland.

The worst year of the Great Famine of Ireland occurred in 1847 when Mary was ten. But we are soon to see how Mary felt about her situation. On 24 April 1849, Mary appeared at the Waterford County Court and convicted of stealing £11 from her aunt. Her sentence, seven years’ transportation[iii].

What was Mary’s state of mind, having been abandoned by her family to work as a servant? Perhaps her aunt, having already given funds to her family for Mary’s services, refused to pay anything further? Whatever the reason for Mary’s theft, this twelve-year-old would now be incarcerated for the next eight months awaiting her departure from Dublin to Van Diemen’s Land. Mary’s world was to be turned upside down once again.

The nightmare continued

On 17 December 1849, in the biting cold of Dublin’s winter, Mary was shepherded onto the convict transport Earl Grey with two hundred and thirty-five other women[iv].

The women would have had little to keep them warm, but when they arrived in Hobart, five months later on 9 May 1850, it would have been a relief to be greeted by mild autumnal weather.

In processing Mary when she stepped off the Earl Grey, they could not find her Gaol Report. We know of Mary’s indictment because of what she told authorities: “Stealing £11 from my Aunt Cath Walsh.”

Her formal report described her as: Height: 5′ 2″ Complexion: Fair freckles. Head: Oval medium size. Hair: Sandy. Visage: Oval full. Forehead: low. Eyebrows: Sandy. Eyes: Blue. Nose: Medium. Mouth: wide. Chin: medium. Native Place: County Cork. Marks: Small mole on upper lip. The surgeon’s report indicated her health was ‘good’.[v]

A teenage rebel

Within a year of her arrival, Mary was sent to The Ross Female Factory, one of four such places built in Van Diemen’s Land. Between 1847 and 1854 it operated as a probation station for female convicts and their babies. Mary was sorted into one of the three classes in the factory—Punishment Class, Crime Class, or Hiring Class[vi]—and allocated a bunk in the Crime Class Ward. Here, she shared a room with several other women, and they were taught how to sew, clean, cook, launder and care for their children[vii].

In April 1851, thirteen-year-old Mary got herself in trouble, and as a result ordered to be moved from her bunk in the Crime Class Ward to a cell, a bleak prospect. The Ross factory had six narrow solitary cells, used for punishment of misdemeanours. The cells were located on the west side of the factory, with a narrow exercise yard attached[viii]. The cramped conditions and isolation from the rest of the community didn’t appeal to Mary and she refused to go. For her obstinance, she was punished with three months hard labour[ix].

One month into her ‘hard labour’ sentence, she was written up for ‘idleness’, on 10 May 1851, and punished with a further two months hard labour—but to be cumulative with her previous sentence[x].

Then, another month later, Mary had had enough. On 7 June 1851, she was written up for ‘insubordination’, and punished with another eighteen months of hard labour, to which Mary responded by breaking some windows. As a result, Mary was required to pay £0.6.8 to cover the cost of the broken windows, before she would ever receive her Ticket of Leave[xi].

One week later, Mary was written up for ‘assault’—was she being taunted or was she defending herself, it is unknown, but it resulted in her having to spend another twenty-one days in the cells[xii].

Her misdemeanours over the past three months show us how thirteen-year-old Mary coped with her new reality—having her liberty withdrawn, isolation from her family, and being thrown in with women of all ages and walks of life. It must have been extremely difficult for her at this young age.

Freedom of sorts

Mary started to learn important lessons about accepting her situation. On 20 September 1852, Mary, now fourteen and with her attitude apparently more controlled, was assigned as a servant to Anglican Reverend Mr Trollope at Oatlands[xiii].

Oatlands is located on the shores of Lake Dulverton about half way between Hobart and Launceston. The reverend was a difficult character. Despite him just founding a school at Oatlands—in the striking two storey stucco Georgian house built around 1840[xiv]—he was under a lot of pressure from journalists. He was considered as “semi-political” and someone who brought “disgrace upon the Church of England” and also “made himself very unpopular by preaching about the chronic state of Sabbath day drunkenness in Green Ponds.”[xv] Many “pray(ed) for his removal.”[xvi] Mary stayed with the reverend until December 1852, when she was re-assigned to Mr R. Harrison in Woodbury (15 kms north of Oatlands)[xvii]. She remained there for a month, when she was re-assigned on 24 January 1853 to Mr J. Dougherty in Oatlands[xviii].

Things take a turn

Fifteen-year-old Mary, seemed to have reverted to her old ways when barely a month into her assignment with Mr Dougherty she was found “having a quantity of apparel in her possession for which she cannot satisfactorily account.” She was returned to The Ross Female Factory and punished with nine months of hard labour[xix]. The bare details of recorded facts don’t give us a sense of whether Mary was justly dealt with, so from this vast distance we can’t begin to judge her actions.

By 20 July 1853, she was assigned to a Mr Roberts, but absconded. She was reissued with four months of hard labour, and returned to The Ross Female Factory[xx].

At the end of her four months hard labour sentence, they assigned Mary to a Mr Clarke, but on 16 November 1853 she was cited for ‘refusing to work’[xxi]. One can’t help wishing to reach back through history to the young Mary to counsel her to keep her head down. They punished Mary with five days in the Ross Female Factory cells[xxii].

A married woman

Mary’s rebellious ways seem to settle after she meets convict John Alcock (who arrived in Van Diemen’s Land aboard the ‘Palmyra’ in 1846[xxiii]). Their application for marriage was approved and they married at the Anglican St Luke’s Church, Campbell Town on 21 February 1854; Mary was sixteen and John, twenty-six[xxiv].

Her situation further improved when, six months later, her Ticket of Leave was approved providing she paid the outstanding money owed for breaking the windows. The outstanding amount was paid, and her Ticket of Leave was granted on 29 August 1854[xxv].

A year later, on 15 August 1855, Mary delivered her first child, a son, John, and by 12 April 1856[xxvi], Mary’s seven-year sentence expired; she was reclassified as ‘Free by Servitude’. Then, Mary delivered a succession of children in each of the three following years to John in Campbell Town: Martha (7 February 1857), Johanna (21 May 1858) and Mary Ellen (31 December 1859)[xxvii].

With her youngest just eighteen months old, Mary delivered another daughter, Matilda, on 22 July 1861—she now had five children under the age of six[xxviii].

Another conviction

Eight years into their marriage, the police came knocking at John and Mary Alcock’s door. The police were there to arrest them on the charge of ‘receiving’. They were both tried at the Supreme Court Oatlands on 27 December 1861; John was found guilty and sentenced to four years gaol at Port Arthur[xxix]. Mary was acquitted as being ‘coerced’, and returned home to her children[xxx].

An act of desperation – Part II

Once John was found guilty, his property was seized and sold for a fine of £50 imposed under the Sheep Stealing Prevention Act. This left Mary without ‘means’, and with Matilda as an infant, she was unable to go into service[xxxi]. Mary was in a desperate situation as to how to feed her family and needed to find a solution to their very survival—reminiscent of her own parent’s situation fifteen years ago. There was a solution available to her that many families in her situation used. If her own parents could leave her behind for the greater good, could she do the same with her own children? On 6 January, 1862, with Matilda in her arms, and the other children trailing behind her, Mary went to the Campbell Town Police Office and applied for the four older children to be admitted to the Queen’s Orphan School[xxxii]. The children were accepted, and Mary left her children, aged six, four, three and two and returned home with just Matilda in her arms. One can only imagine how the children reacted to their mother leaving them behind—and how Mary felt.

But things went from bad to worse for Mary. Not long after, baby Matilda perished before her first birthday[xxxiii]. Mary was on her own.

Queen’s Orphan School

The Queen’s Orphan School facility was located in New Town, Hobart, over 130 kms away from Campbell Town. It took in mostly convicts’ children, who were not released until their parent/s had their Tickets of Leave and could care for their children. Many were never released to their parents and were apprenticed out until they were eighteen years of age. And like Mary’s children, most of them were not orphans bereft of both parents.

A report on the Queen’s Orphan School in 1864, when Mary’s children had been there for two years, listed 463 children at the institution, of whom 411 were the children of convicts and seven were Aboriginal[xxxiv]. Other reports indicated that conditions within the school were harsh: the buildings were sparsely furnished and cold; food was often in short supply; and many of those responsible for caring for the children treated them harshly[xxxv]. Mary’s six year old son, John, was separated from his sisters, and placed in the boys’ ‘school’, her daughters, Martha (aged four), Johanna (three), and Mary Ellen (two), were placed in the girls’ ‘school’.

Mary secures her future

While John Alcock continued to serve his sentence in Port Arthur and their children remained at Queens, Mary needed a plan to secure her future. Fourteen months after she placed the children in the orphanage, Mary became pregnant to local trader (emancipated ex-convict) Jabez Bartlett. She delivered another baby girl on 16 November 1863, named Emma Bartlett Alcock[xxxvi]. This child sadly survived only sixteen months and died on 4 March 1865[xxxvii].

Two weeks later, John Alcock was released from Port Arthur[xxxviii]. But by this time, Mary was already three months pregnant with her seventh child, and delivered a son, James Francis Xavier Bartlett on 14 September 1865[xxxix]. It is unclear what John Alcock made of his wife’s new life with Jabez Bartlett, but he didn’t remain in the Campbell Town area.

With Mary now running a haberdashery business at 84 High Street, Campbell Town, and Jabez successfully peddling goods through the Fingal Valley, particularly Mathinna, and purchasing skins and hides, Mary found stability and purpose. She turned her back on her husband, who could not provide the life Mary needed, and instead chose Jabez, who had begun to buy property. Despite now having ‘means’, neither Mary nor her husband John retrieved the children from the orphanage.

Mary and Jabez continued to expand their family on 13 September 1867 when she delivered another daughter, Elizabeth Imelda Bartlett in Campbell Town.

The children and Mary are released

On 16 April 1870, Martha Alcock (who had been at the orphanage for eight years and had now turned thirteen) was discharged from the Queen’s Orphan School to the servitude of Mrs C. Anderson (in New Town) where she stayed until 28 June 1872[xl], when she was readmitted to the orphanage by Mrs Anderson on the grounds of “insolence, neglect of duty, and positive refusal to do her work”—sounds so much like her mother. The Members of the Board of Guardians were of the opinion that the girl’s conduct can be traced to the improper interference of her mother and a change of service is desirable for the parties involved.

When Johanna turned thirteen, in 1871, she was discharged to the service of Mr Henry Hanton[xli], but the arrangement became unsuitable and, like her sister, she was readmitted to the orphanage[xlii].

While her daughters were experiencing life on the outside, albeit for short stints, Mary had her hands full, giving birth on 14 September 1871 to a son they called William Nicholas Bartlett[xliii].

Then, on 2 September 1872, Martha was finally released from Queen’s Orphanage to the servitude of Mrs Shelverton (in Green Ponds)[xliv] and was at least in her service on 4 December 1873, when Martha became involved in a turkey stealing incident, in which she was required to give evidence[xlv]. She was never charged. Martha eventually moved to Bendigo[xlvi] and died at age eighty-five. She didn’t appear to marry.

The orphanage records show that Mary’s son, John, was also released from the orphanage, but a date is not recorded, nor to whom he was apprenticed. Ancestry records show that John married Margaret Neil and they had at least four children. He potentially changed his name from John Alcock to John Jones, and he died in Berrigan, New South Wales on 22 August 1896, aged forty-one.

It wasn’t only Mary’s children who were experiencing some freedom that year. On 2 June 1872, Mary’s husband, John Alcock died (aged forty-five) at St Helens[xlvii] (about 120 kms north-east of Campbell Town) officially making Mary a widow. But she didn’t rush to marry Jabez, instead delivered another baby: on 12 April 1873, their son Jabez was born[xlviii].

With Martha freed from the orphanage, it was now her sister, Mary Ellen Alcock’s turn. Fifteen-year-old Mary Ellen was discharged from Queen’s Orphan’s School on 9 March 1874 to the servitude of Mary Lewis, but was re-admitted back to the orphanage after a short time[xlix]. A month later, on 24 April, she was released again, for a final time, to her mother[l] (who needed help with her four Bartlett children aged between nine and one). Mary Ellen Alcock was a bright girl, having won an arithmetic prize in 1872 and a writing prize in 1873[li]. She married Alexander MacDonald when she was nineteen[lii], but sadly died in Victoria seven years later.

Mary and Jabez make it official

On 13 February 1875, Mary (three months pregnant and listed as age thirty-eight, but she was actually thirty-seven) and Jabez (forty-six) married[liii]. On their marriage certificate they were listed as Mary Ellen Alcock (spinster—she was actually a widow) and Jabez Bartlett, General Dealer (bachelor). They married in the presence of Thomas and Jane Smith, in the Anglican Church of St George.

A week later, Johanna received her second chance at freedom and was discharged from the Queen’s Orphanage School to live with Mary and Jabez, like her sister Mary Ellen, but this arrangement lasted only a short time, before Johanna again returned to the orphanage. But by 16 June 1875, Johanna was released for the last time to the servitude of Joseph Scanlan, who was reported to have abused her[liv]. Johanna subsequently left Van Diemen’s Land and went to Melbourne, where she married (Thomas Smithwick and George Wight) and had eleven children[lv]. She died at Ascot Vale aged seventy.

Six months after Mary and Jabez were married, another son, Charles Edwin Bartlett was born on 10 August 1875[lvi], but the happiness of that year was not to last, as three months later, on 8 November 1875, their two-year-old son, Jabez, died[lvii].

Finally, when Mary was forty-two, perhaps believing her baby production days were over (with her youngest child, Charles now five), she became pregnant one last time. On 7 June 1880, she delivered her last baby, a daughter, Alicia Maud Bartlett[lviii].

A life-changing accident

It is family legend that Jabez Bartlett’s mother, Elizabeth Bartlett, was a court harpist, and Jabez insisted his children learn to play music. This was to be a particularly special gift to his son, Charles, who in 1883 at age eight was blinded in an accident.

Jabez and Mary sent him to the Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind and Deaf, where he received a sound education and became an accomplished flautist and singer. In 1892, as a seventeen-year-old, he was chosen to be a member of a concert party for the blind and toured country towns in Victoria. His brother, William, became the band’s manager and toured with them, creating a lucrative business.

Shame for the family

Whilst his brothers, Charles and William, were building a successful business in the entertainment industry, James Francis Xavier Bartlett, had moved to Beechworth, Victoria, at least as early as December 1890, where he was presenting false cheques[lix].

At his conviction hearing, James admitted to presenting fourteen fraudulent cheques and said “He was glad to have been arrested as he wished to lead a better life in future.” The judge commented that “the scheme by which he obtained the goods and money was a very cleverly constructed one.” He was found guilty of two charges of false pretences on 8 February 1893 and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour in each case (sentences to be concurrent).[lx].

On 16 February 1893, James faced three cases of forgery and uttery and was convicted of another two counts of fraud (the third was dropped) in the Bendigo Assize Court, and was sentenced to three years hard labour with solitary confinement[lxi]. The judge commented that “the prisoner had evidently determined to set the law at defiance and it would be necessary for a somewhat severe sentence to be passed on him.”

He faced the Supreme Court, Melbourne on 26 July 1893 for Shop-breaking and was sentenced to four years hard labour with periods of solitary confinement.

Four years later, on 9 December 1897, James appeared at the Wangaratta General Sessions charged with breaking into a counting house (Bethanga Post Office) and stealing, with an accomplice, Samuel Butt[lxii]. A witness described he knew “Bartlett as the advance agent for the blind troupe.” The pair apparently created an explosion which blew off the Post Office door. After the robbery, the pair escaped on a bike (one riding, one standing on pegs). Butt caught a train for Warrnambool, Bartlett returned to the Oriental Coffee Palace North Melbourne (his place of residence) and needed a rag to tie up his hand as he had hurt it falling from a bicycle. Both men were convicted and received a sentence of eight years hard labour. The judge said that “with the assistance of a bike (it) placed great power in the hand of the burglar” and added they were “clever criminals.”

James died unmarried at Gordon House (subsidised housing) on 16 September 1926 (aged sixty-one)[lxiii].

Getting affairs in order

In 1895, when Jabez was sixty-seven, the hawker and dealer formalised his will. With James in gaol and Charles blinded, Jabez turned to his remaining son, William, to act as co-executor[lxiv].

When Jabez died at the age of seventy-two, despite not mentioning Mary in his will, his death notice mentioned he was the ‘beloved husband of Mary Bartlett.’ His obituary noted that the deceased “was widely known and respected throughout the whole colony, [who] died after a very short illness at Mathinna on Tuesday last. He leaves a widow, at present dangerously ill, and three sons and two daughters.”[lxv]

Mathinna was part of Jabez’s trading route, some 90 kms away from their home in Campbell Town. His sons, William and Charles, were away touring and returned only in time to bury their father. Mary’s poor health is mentioned in the obituary, but she survived Jabez for another twelve years. Perhaps Jabez considered that his elderly wife would not have needed her own assets, as he expected that her children would care for her in her dotage?

Mary died at age seventy-six on 15 March 1912 at the home of her daughter (Alicia) Mrs M Bendall, 263 Charles Street, Campbell Town[lxvi]. After all of Mary’s marriages in Anglican churches, her faith was recognised in her burial service, which was held at St Michael’s Roman Catholic Church, Campbell Town, and she’s buried at St Michael’s Roman Catholic Cemetery. Her grave is marked by a large stone cross, which is relieved with a ship’s anchor, to symbolise her steadfast faith.

In the end, a comfortable life

A review of Jabez Bartlett’s will sheds light on how successful his and Mary’s businesses were, which provided them with many assets and security. From nothing, they created a comfortable life for themselves through hard work and perseverance. While the Bartlett children benefitted from this success, it is not obvious whether Mary’s children with John Alcock received any support.

The Bartlett assets

Jabez Bartlett bequeathed his horses, carts, harnesses and all other his personal estate and effects which may belong to him at the time of his death to his son, William[lxvii], as well as an allotment of land containing eighteen perches, together with the four roomed house and stables in Campbell Town at the corner of Bridge and King Streets, and an allotment of land containing one rood and thirty nine and one half perches situate in Campbell Town fronting on King and Glenelg Streets.

To his son, James, he bequeathed his four acre land in Campbell Town fronting onto Forster and Torlesse Streets.

He directed that his home should not be sold until Alice[lxviii] reached the age of twenty-one, died or married, whichever came first (she was twenty when he died and married the next year).

To his son, Charles[lxix], he bequeathed an allotment of land situate on Bridge Street in Campbell Town containing twenty one perches together with a brick cottage.

To his married daughter, Elizabeth Kennedy[lxx], an allotment of land containing eleven and one half perches in Campbell Town fronting on the esplanade together with a four roomed cottage.

To his daughter, Alice, an allotment of land containing one rood thirty nine and one half perches in Campbell Town, corner of Queen and Glenelg Streets. Plus land two roods thirty two poles purchased in the name of Alice (as an infant) and that she was entitled to the same in fee simple.

The residue of his real estate was to be divided to his said children in equal shares.

Of Mary’s nine children who made it into adulthood, only one, William, chose to make a life in Tasmania and continued to live there all of his life.

An enduring image

The sole photograph we have of Mary as an adult shows little of the eleven-year-old convict girl who landed on the shores of Van Diemen’s Land in 1850 as a waif with nothing to her name. In the image, Mary wears a fitted hat, trimmed in velvet and embellished with ribbon and possibly flowers, and her burgundy satin gown has a detailed bodice and sleeves, lace collar and cuffs and a gold brooch at her throat. Her hands are clasped together as she leans on the arm of an upholstered sofa. But it is her eyes which give a hint of her history. Her steel blue gaze is direct and unwavering.

During her lifetime, she was abandoned by her family as a child. She was arrested and gaoled twice, and was forced to leave her home country. In her teenage years, she resisted authority, often paying a heavy price. With so much against her, Mary was determined to create a life for herself. She looked for opportunity, marrying twice and delivering twelve children—sadly burying three of them. At times, she struggled to feed her children, being forced to give some of them up. Later, with her husband away for long periods of time, and despite constantly having children hanging onto her skirts, Mary ran a business in Campbell Town and became a popular figure in the village. In time, Mary achieved the life she wanted and knew prosperity. Mary was a survivor.

[i] https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Famine-Irish-history/Great-Famine-relief-efforts (accessed 23 Oct, 2022)

[ii] Amazon.com Ireland Catholic Parish Registers 1655-1915

[iii] Libraries Tasmania. CON41-1-26 Image 242 Original Convict Record: https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON41-1-26$init=CON41-1-26p242

[iv] Bateson, Charles & Library of Australian History (1983). The convict ships, 1787-1868 (Australian ed). Library of Australian History, Sydney : pp.370-371, 394 and Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office (TAHO) : CON15-1-6, pp.102-167

[v] Ibid

[vi] https://www.taswoolcentre.com.au/event/ross-female-factory-archeological-survey/ (accessed 23 Oct 2022)

[vii] https://www.discovertasmania.com.au/things-to-do/heritage-and-history/rossfemalefactoryhistoricsite/ (accessed 20 Oct 2022)

[viii] Archives Office of Tasmania PWD 266/1695

[ix] Ibid

[x] Ibid

[xi] Ibid

[xii] Ibid

[xiii] Ibid

[xiv] https://www.ourtasmania.com.au/hobart/oatlands.html (accessed 20 Oct 2022)

[xv] https://www.churchesoftasmania.com/2018/12/no-292-st-marys-at-kempton-cui-bono.html (accessed 21 Oct 2022)

[xvi] Ibid

[xvii] Ibid

[xviii] Ibid

[xix] Ibid

[xx] Ibid

[xxi] Ibid

[xxii] Ibid

[xxiii] Tasmanian Archives – convicts. Conduct Record pg 7. Australia, Convict Records Index, 1787-1867.

[xxiv] Libraries Tasmania. Record ID: NAME_INDEXES:846033 Resource: RGD37/1/13 no 58

[xxv] Ibid

[xxvi] Ancestry.com: Australia, Births and Baptisms, 1792-1981

[xxvii] Ibid

[xxviii] Ibid

[xxix] Ancestry.com: Tasmania, Reports of Crime, 1865, p. 47

[xxx] Register of Children admitted and discharged from the Male and Female Orphan School. (SWD28/1/1). Libraries Tasmania

[xxxi] Ibid

[xxxii] Ibid

[xxxiii] Ibid

[xxxiv] https://www.orphanschool.org.au/orphanschools.php (accessed 23 Oct 2022)

[xxxv] Ibid

[xxxvi] Ibid

[xxxvii] Ibid

[xxxviii] Ibid

[xxxix] Ibid

[xl] https://www.orphanschool.org.au/showorphan.php?orphan_ID=27 (accessed 20 Oct 2022)

[xli] Libraries Tasmania. Item # SWD32/1/1. Copy # Z731. Register of Children Apprenticed from the Asylum (SWD32) Page 2

[xlii] https://www.orphanschool.org.au/showorphan.php?orphan_ID=25 (accessed 20 Oct 2022)

[xliii] Ibid

[xliv] Ibid. Note also, Libraries Tasmania. Item # SWD32/1/1. Copy # Z731. Register of Children Apprenticed from the Asylum (SWD32) Page 2 has a date for Martha’s apprenticeship to Mrs Shelverton of 10 January 1875, which conflicts with their own records, and does not align with newspaper reports

[xlv] The Mercury, Hobart Tas. Thursday, 4 December 1873. ‘Supreme Court, Criminal Sessions / Charge of Perjury’

[xlvi] Ancestry.com: Victoria Australia, Death Index 1836-1988

[xlvii] Ibid

[xlviii] Ibid

[xlix] https://www.orphanschool.org.au/showorphan.php?orphan_ID=28 (accessed 20 Oct 2022)

[l] Ibid and Libraries Tasmania. Item # SWD32/1/1. Copy # Z731. Register of Children Apprenticed from the Asylum (SWD32) Page 4

[li] Ibid

[lii] Ibid

[liii] Ancestry.com: Australia Marriage Index, 1788-1949

[liv] Ibid

[lv] Ibid

[lvi] Ibid

[lvii] Ibid

[lviii] Ibid

[lix] Ovens and Murray Advertiser, Saturday 11 February 1893

[lx] Ibid

[lxi] Bendigo Advertiser, Saturday, 18 February 1893

[lxii] Ovens and Murray Advertiser, Saturday 11 December 1897

[lxiii] Ibid

[lxiv] Libraries Tasmania. File number: 5680. Record ID: NAME_INDEXES:1665430. Resource: AD960-1-24 Will Number 5680

[lxv] Hobart Examiner, 11 August 1900

[lxvi] Daily Telegraph, Launceston, 16 March 1912

[lxvii] William Bartlett married Mary Foster and had ten children. He died aged seventy-one at Bridge Street, Campbell Town.

[lxviii] Alice Bartlett married Thomas Bendall and had ten children. She died aged seventy-three in Essendon.

[lxix] Charles Bartlett married Elizabeth Williams and had eight children. He died aged fifty-five in Melbourne.

[lxx] Elizabeth Bartlett married Alexander Kennedy, David Patterson and Reginald Webb, and had at least one child. She died aged seventy-nine in Coburg.